High Court of Allahabad5 August 2026

Kumar Manish (Corpus) v. Union of India

For revenue

HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION NO. 913 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where competent authority had credible material and recorded adequate reasons showing necessity of arrest for proper investigation and preventing further offences or evidence tampering, arrest for ITC fraud was valid notwithstanding maximum punishment prescribed was up to five years.

Where grounds of arrest were duly served, competent authority recorded reasons to believe, and proceedings complied with departmental safeguards, arrest of petitioner was lawful; mere allegations of delayed supply, coercion or procedural irregularities did not warrant habeas corpus relief

Provisions considered

Section 69, read with section 132, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Patna High Court17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Sanjeet Kumar Pandey @ Sanjeet Pandey v. Union of India

Where petitioner was arrested for allegedly orchestrating issuance and availment of fraudulent ITC through fake tax invoices, considering that charge sheet had been filed and investigation stood completed, petitioner was enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond and two sureties of like amount to satisfaction of ACJM

Punjab & Haryana High Court7 Sept 2026

For assessee

Navinder Singh Sahdev v. Directorate General of Gst Intelligence, Chandigarh

Where petitioners managing payout company and linked firm were accused in GST evasion network misreporting online money-gaming receipts through sham entities and dummy directors, with investigation completed, four months' custody, documentary evidence, and no risk of influence or tampering, further detention would have served no useful purpose and regular bail was to be granted subject to conditions

Punjab & Haryana High Court24 Aug 2026

For assessee

Karan Kochhar v. Inspector (Anti-Evasion) of CGST Commissionerate

Where petitioner was accused of availing wrongful ITC using fake invoices without goods movement, remained in custody for about four months, had clean antecedents, case material was documentary, there was no risk of flight or tampering with evidence, and trial was not nearing completion, continued detention was unwarranted and petitioner was entitled to bail subject to conditions

Kumar Manish (Corpus) v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Kumar Manish (Corpus) v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Sanjeet Kumar Pandey @ Sanjeet Pandey v. Union of India

Navinder Singh Sahdev v. Directorate General of Gst Intelligence, Chandigarh

Karan Kochhar v. Inspector (Anti-Evasion) of CGST Commissionerate

Read the full analysis